Proof of stake mining of bicoin

[inBitweTrust]

So you are ok with DPOS and Etheruem?

I like competition and the free proliferation of ideas so why wouldn't I be ok with them?

As long as people openly and honestly discuss these ideas and use these tools without misrepresentations
or by positing assumptions as facts than there is no problem with them co-existing and flourishing.

Anyway, every new days brings more and more PoS coins.

Wouldn't that be expected being that PoS has a very suitable security model for new coins without many participants.
Expect many more variations of PoS to pop into existence, with most of them being pump and dump schemes with little
technical innovation or development talent ....*ahem* paycoin2

[Come-from-Beyond]

As long as people openly and honestly discuss these ideas and use these tools without misrepresentations
or by positing assumptions as facts than there is no problem with them co-existing and flourishing.

No need to insult cbeast, he is a legendary donator. 

[siameze]

... it wasn't
just some dudes high on a hill somewhere declaring
they invented a currency and saying everyone should
go use it. 

This sounds like the majority of alt and clone coins nowadays. As long as you have a fancy name and slick graphics (and a lemming-esque userbase) you are golden.

[inBitweTrust]

This sounds like the majority of alt and clone coins nowadays. As long as you have a fancy name and slick graphics (and a lemming-esque userbase) you are golden.

One of several great things about 100% PoW is that it isn't ideal as a scam/ponzi/P&D coin because distribution is open to anyone doing the work, is expensive and any weak PoW currencies who don't capture the interest of the public with true innovation quickly get attacked because they don't have the mining hashrate to sustain against an aggressor.

You can easily spot a scammy PoW coin by it having a extremely sharp rather than gradual distribution curve - I.E... Quark.

[cbeast]

This sounds like the majority of alt and clone coins nowadays. As long as you have a fancy name and slick graphics (and a lemming-esque userbase) you are golden.

One of several great things about 100% PoW is that it isn't ideal as a scam/ponzi/P&D coin because distribution is open to anyone doing the work, is expensive and any weak PoW currencies who don't capture the interest of the public with true innovation quickly get attacked because they don't have the mining hashrate to sustain against an aggressor.

You can easily spot a scammy PoW coin by it having a extremely sharp rather than gradual distribution curve - I.E... Quark.

Right. And by the same token PoS absolutely require fancy names like Monero, Ethereum, and Peercoin, and heavy marketing to succeed. Marketing a PoW like Doge gets notoriety, but the notion of actual work kills the romance. Ultimately, future PoS coins will be premined (or pre minted, or pre birthed or whatever) by whatever corporations can afford the best advertising.

[cbeast]

When Satoshi finished writing bitcoin and created the genesis block he created a legacy that grows with each miner added. Whomever creates a really cool PoS will have his code cloned and issued by someone with no interest in the coder. That coder will be forgotten because there is no hardware binding users to the genesis block. Why are VCs dumping so much money into work that will be stolen and changed to someone else's advantage?

[Shuai]

You haven't heard? Ethereum is going to be PoW. BitShares is DPoS , not PoS. Nxt is slowly dying and losing place to PoW and Debt based currencies.

There is no fundamental difference between DPoS and PoS.

Regarding Ethereum, here is the latest news - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPsCGvXyrP4. It says that Ethereum will be PoS.

DPOS makes the blockchain a lot more like a company than the wild west free-for-all of mining/forging that PoW/PoS entails. Block producers are not determined by the stake they own, they're determined by their reputation and trustworthiness in the community, and what they can offer in return for their block production (development, marketing, etc.). Like a mix between NXT and ripple if ripple labs was decentralized and run on the blockchain.

[cbeast]

You haven't heard? Ethereum is going to be PoW. BitShares is DPoS , not PoS. Nxt is slowly dying and losing place to PoW and Debt based currencies.

There is no fundamental difference between DPoS and PoS.

Regarding Ethereum, here is the latest news - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPsCGvXyrP4. It says that Ethereum will be PoS.

DPOS makes the blockchain a lot more like a company than the wild west free-for-all of mining/forging that PoW/PoS entails. Block producers are not determined by the stake they own, they're determined by their reputation and trustworthiness in the community, and what they can offer in return for their block production (development, marketing, etc.). Like a mix between NXT and ripple if ripple labs was decentralized and run on the blockchain.

DPOS has no justification to make that claim. DPOS sells votes to the highest bidder. In politics that's called FASCISM. Unless you have a way to positively identify your voter registration, you will never have a fair election.

[Tobo]

DPOS makes the blockchain a lot more like a company than the wild west free-for-all of mining/forging that PoW/PoS entails. Block producers are not determined by the stake they own, they're determined by their reputation and trustworthiness in the community, and what they can offer in return for their block production (development, marketing, etc.). Like a mix between NXT and ripple if ripple labs was decentralized and run on the blockchain.

DPOS and Nxt are two variations of PoS. The D in DPoS is a similar idea to the Economic Clusters in Nxt but different in implementation.

[jonald_fyookball]

I would summarize things as follows:

Given the same distribution (issuance),
the energy cost is going to be same no matter what
scheme you use, but PoW is the simplest, most
proven, and arguably the most fair.

[cbeast]

I would summarize things as follows:

Given the same distribution (issuance),
the energy cost is going to be same no matter what
scheme you use, but PoW is the simplest, most
proven, and arguably the most fair.

I've seen you mention that before but can't quite wrap my head around the notion that PoS will use a lot of energy. Can you give a scenario?

[Shuai]

You haven't heard? Ethereum is going to be PoW. BitShares is DPoS , not PoS. Nxt is slowly dying and losing place to PoW and Debt based currencies.

There is no fundamental difference between DPoS and PoS.

Regarding Ethereum, here is the latest news - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPsCGvXyrP4. It says that Ethereum will be PoS.

DPOS makes the blockchain a lot more like a company than the wild west free-for-all of mining/forging that PoW/PoS entails. Block producers are not determined by the stake they own, they're determined by their reputation and trustworthiness in the community, and what they can offer in return for their block production (development, marketing, etc.). Like a mix between NXT and ripple if ripple labs was decentralized and run on the blockchain.

DPOS has no justification to make that claim. DPOS sells votes to the highest bidder. In politics that's called FASCISM. Unless you have a way to positively identify your voter registration, you will never have a fair election.

Bitshares shareholder voting system is no different than the system used in every single public or private company in the world. Are you saying the system of joint-stock companies are "fascism"? Nice attempt at FUD, though, gotta have to give you a 2/5.

[jonald_fyookball]

I would summarize things as follows:

Given the same distribution (issuance),
the energy cost is going to be same no matter what
scheme you use, but PoW is the simplest, most
proven, and arguably the most fair.

I've seen you mention that before but can't quite wrap my head around the notion that PoS will use a lot of energy. Can you give a scenario?

It's explained in this article: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-and-mining/

It depends on implementation of the coin, but something like making
alternate chains or addresses...spending CPU power to compete for
the rewards until its no longer profitable to keep doing so.

[Shuai]

I would summarize things as follows:

Given the same distribution (issuance),
the energy cost is going to be same no matter what
scheme you use, but PoW is the simplest, most
proven, and arguably the most fair.

I've seen you mention that before but can't quite wrap my head around the notion that PoS will use a lot of energy. Can you give a scenario?

It's explained in this article: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-and-mining/

It depends on implementation of the coin, but something like making
alternate chains or addresses...spending CPU power to compete for
the rewards until its no longer profitable to keep doing so.

This is completely clueless. A simple block production bond system makes it unprofitable to ever attempt to produce blocks on more than one chain at a time. This is actually yet another permutation of the naive nothing at stake "problem" that has been solved ages ago by DPOS.

It's quite amazing that people are so emotionally invested in proof of waste that they continue to cling on to these non-issues in desperation.

[cbeast]

I would summarize things as follows:

Given the same distribution (issuance),
the energy cost is going to be same no matter what
scheme you use, but PoW is the simplest, most
proven, and arguably the most fair.

I've seen you mention that before but can't quite wrap my head around the notion that PoS will use a lot of energy. Can you give a scenario?

It's explained in this article: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-and-mining/

It depends on implementation of the coin, but something like making
alternate chains or addresses...spending CPU power to compete for
the rewards until its no longer profitable to keep doing so.

OK, I get that.

This is completely clueless. A simple block production bond system makes it unprofitable to ever attempt to produce blocks on more than one chain at a time. This is actually yet another permutation of the naive nothing at stake "problem" that has been solved ages ago by DPOS.

It's quite amazing that people are so emotionally invested in proof of waste that they continue to cling on to these non-issues in desperation.

Yeah, um VMs would do the trick. Also it appears your solution is to increase energy requirements anyway.

[jonald_fyookball]

I would summarize things as follows:

Given the same distribution (issuance),
the energy cost is going to be same no matter what
scheme you use, but PoW is the simplest, most
proven, and arguably the most fair.

I've seen you mention that before but can't quite wrap my head around the notion that PoS will use a lot of energy. Can you give a scenario?

It's explained in this article: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-and-mining/

It depends on implementation of the coin, but something like making
alternate chains or addresses...spending CPU power to compete for
the rewards until its no longer profitable to keep doing so.

This is completely clueless. A simple block production bond system makes it unprofitable to ever attempt to produce blocks on more than one chain at a time. This is actually yet another permutation of the naive nothing at stake "problem" that has been solved ages ago by DPOS.

It's quite amazing that people are so emotionally invested in proof of waste that they continue to cling on to these non-issues in desperation.

I'll refer to the article again:

switching the payout-trigger to a social or political dimension (as in Delegated-PoS) would merely transpose the work-expenditures correspondingly to the realms of bribery and propaganda, which Bitshares has already seen.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6096.45

The bottom line is:  if there is money to be made,
people will do whatever is possible to compete for it.
You really can't stop competition and people trying
to game the system in some way.  

To put it more concretely with DPOS:  If Bitshares
really took off and was generating a million dollars
worth of rewards everyday like Bitcoin does now,
don't you think people would be trying to become
delegates?  Don't you think certain motivated
people or groups would try to get 5, 10, 25, 50,
or more of the delegate slots?

What would stop them from investing money to
do so, given that the payouts would be enormous?

Furthermore, why wouldn't a delegate re-invest
his profits into trying to acquire more delegate spots?

On a side note: Security deposits may solve an aspect of the "nothing at
stake" issue, but they do not stop competition.

[AllTheBitz]

Alt coins seem to become more and more trashy.

[cbeast]

POS=no production cost=no value

If I can produce a coin without any cost, why should I pay any thing valuable to exchange it??? I will just go ahead to mine it

Fiat money can do this because there is a law to force its circulation, and the cost to make that law can be a war, which costs millions of times more energy than POW mining

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=848881.0

Point 7

Quoting a FUD thread won't win any credibility.

[Come-from-Beyond]

One of several great things about 100% PoW is that it isn't ideal as a scam/ponzi/P&D coin because distribution is open to anyone doing the work, is expensive and any weak PoW currencies who don't capture the interest of the public with true innovation quickly get attacked because they don't have the mining hashrate to sustain against an aggressor.

You can easily spot a scammy PoW coin by it having a extremely sharp rather than gradual distribution curve - I.E... Quark.

It seems to me that (unlike PoS) PoW must be a ponzi scheme or ever-inflating, otherwise it will be unsustainable.

[Come-from-Beyond]

In politics that's called FASCISM.

Boys and girls, don't argue with this guy, you will simple waste your time. I quoted yet another example (among 1000s) when he creates strawmen and then successfully attacks them.